Discussion Question 8

I had difficulty accessing the second website, "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" so that is why my discussion question is late. The site would not load until now, however some of the links I click on bring me to a database error page. I found the "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" overwhelming. I thought it could have been better visually organized. However, I did like the idea of having the topics categorized by common points you would hear from a skeptic. I also noticed there were a lot more links to outside information and they clearly cited a lot more scientific data than the other website. I definitely thought "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" did a good job covering all of the bases. Maybe of the topics were things I have heard skeptics say or even thought of myself.

To be honest the Friends of Science website caught me off guard. I thought it was a prevention of climate change website at first because of the revolving earth logo and the "scientific" layout and design of the website. When I started reading though I realized ...not so much. They took a very scientific approach to disproving that humans are causing climate change. It would be hard to argue their points unless you were a scientist or did you own research and read their sources. Most people though are not too familiar with climate change and if this was the first time I was being presented with scientific information on climate change I would probably by into it. I noticed there were very few link references but if you do go further into the website you can download an annotated bibliography. The annotated bibliography is from a book (which you can also download), which purpose is like the website's to disprove climate change. The sources looked pretty legitimate to me but I'm not a scientist. Also the question comes to mind... Are they misquoting the data for their own agenda?

They'll Find Any Point to Argue

The Friends of Science website brings up mixed feelings for me. In one way, it makes me laugh, because the true science so completely disproves everything that these people are claiming. But on the other hand, it makes me a bit worried, because it means that there are people out there who still don't believe in climate change. And without everyone being on board that this is an issue, it will be much more difficult to create truly effective policies to change the problems. Even though most of the science that they put forth is false, they organize it in a very convincing way on the page. One such example is their Myth #10. It says that oceans aren't rising and threatening small island nations. If it wasn't threatening the Maldives (which they specifically stated on their website), why would the President and cabinet take the time to go under water to hold a meeting? Overall, this website makes it seem as if they really know what they are talking about and could be instrumental in changing some people's opinions.

The Grist article brought me back to my days of high school chemistry. My teacher was probably one of the biggest climate change skeptics I have ever met. Now, this doesn't come as a surprise to me, seeing as I live in a tiny town full of Republicans. But as one of the oldest (as in, he taught my mom chemistry too) and most respected teachers at the school, most people would just believe anything that he said. One of the most distinct "climate change skeptic" viewpoints that I remember him sharing is about the "fabricated" hole in the ozone layer. His justification was that ozone is a molecule, and thus it cannot create a layer, much less a hole, because the molecules are always moving around in the atmosphere. Since everyone respected him as a teacher, no one really refuted his points, knowing that he was very set in his ways. Everyone just took what he had to be true.

What I don't understand, then, brings us back to the Grist article. In today's world, there are so many indicators and scientific proof that climate change is happening. And it is happening at such a fast pace that it cannot possibly just be a natural phenomenon. I think there were some funny ideas brought up, but it all came back to basically the same idea that no matter how hard you try, most skeptics will not listen to you. They will always bring up the same justifications for the fabrication of climate change, like Democrats wanting more tax money and wanting to kill capitalism and the American way of life. What they don't realize is that with a bit of work, we can change the basics of the system to make it better for the environment, without reverting back 300 years to 1709. Maybe one day, with enough persuasion, all of the skeptics will finally see the light and realize that they are incorrect. Until then, all we can do is hope for this turning point and make sure that we don't lose any support to them.

My sentiment mirrors Colin's: climate change skeptics have gone from mildly irritating to painfully obnoxious. In the beginning stages of data collection and analysis, it could be understandable why some, even scientists, would be hesitant to fully accept such a monolithic concept as global climate change, which has such apocalyptic predictions and effects that most logical human beings would look for an alternate answer. The time for questioning, however, has well passed, and with solid data supporting climate change as a result of increased carbon dioxide levels, any refutation of this phenomena is warranted, and reeks of an ulterior motive. Although I couldn't locate any foul play on the Friends of Science site, it seemed impossible that the organization was run by legitimate scientists, working without an agenda or hidden intentions.

That said, the biting sarcasm layered throughout the Grist article highlighted the fact that you just cannot argue with climate change skeptics. Grist, which confronts environmental news with a humorous tone, set up an elaborate, rational, logical outline for answering the qualms and concerns of the Ostriches, my new term for those who prefer to hide their head in the sand while the Earth is quickly warming. The irony is that these cynics don't respond to this left-brained thinking, and it is futile to confront the unabashed denial with cold, hard facts. The skepticism is political and value based, often steeped in fear, or some vague notion that environmentalism is killing the "American Way" or profit-driven capitalism. What is most difficult to understand about climate change skeptics is their argument that the environmental is a left-wing conspiracy. What would be our motives? Why would we create a disaster scenario for no reason? Perhaps the most effective mode of reasoning would be to persuade cynics that environmentalists have nothing to gain from the movement, and that we, along with the rest of the world, would be better off it climate change weren't happening.

Real Science?

I have to admit, I find myself becoming less and less tolerant of climate change skepticism. There is no unifying objection to the patterns of climate change, it just seems that politicians, pundits, and bloggers find random, unassociated problems with the phenomenon, making it seem like they are reaching for holes in the logic without understanding the concepts themselves.
The 'Friends of Science' website is one of the more compelling cases I have seen. Usually, skeptics are satisfied merely claiming that there is no evidence or consensus and that its all a liberal conspiracy. This site, however, addressed individual scientific claims and refuted them. Nonetheless, I found most of the arguments to be trivial points that were exaggerated to seem crucial. For example, a main point made was the importance of CO2 in the greenhouse gas effect. They argued that water vapor and other gases constitute a larger percentage of the effect itself. However, this point is irrelevant when you incorporate data that show human induced CO2 emissions compared to human induced increases in other GHGs. Just because CO2 is a small part of the atmospheric composition, does not mean anthropogenic increases of its presence in the atmosphere cant affect the greenhouse effect.

Although I am certainly biased, I definitely found the grist piece more convincing. The arguments presented were more detailed and provided a clearer picture of the situation, rather than an attack on the other side's position. I also appreciated the long lists of supporters in the international scientific community for each argument. This is not to say, however, that the Friends of Science site was poorly done. I think it is very well done, and is probably very successful in providing evidence to those who agree with it. I just dont believe that it was scientifically successful enough to make people change their minds

I personally try to ignore the debate over climate change science. I find the arguments to be largely irrelevant and unnecessary; they seem like pure distractions. I think there are plenty of good reasons to stop burning fossil fuels and revamp our energy policy, and there are more than enough reasons to fundamentally change our consumptive habits. If people cant agree about the scientific basis of global warming, they can at least agree that oil will eventually run out, and that our impact on the planet is exceeding its limit in many other ways. If we dont put down our partisan fighting on these issues, we are going to find out who is right and wrong the hard way

Biodiversity

Probably the most exciting experience I had with nature was when I went snorkeling in Hawaii. First of all Hawaii was probably the most beautiful place I had ever been. We took a boat to a spot where they told us there were supposed to be sea turtles. I was really nervous about snorkeling because I thought I might freak out if I saw a shark or any fish that was bigger than my hand. However once I got in the water, I had so much fun. I was so surprised to see there were actually sea turtles. They were the most beautiful animals I've seen in person. They were so majestic and graceful. At the same time they were really quick in the water. I was one of the last persons back on the boat because I didn't want to leave.

Not everyone will agree with me on this but I would say yes. We should concern ourselves with "saving nature" considering we're the ones that are wiping them out. We rely on nature. The End of the Wild made a good point when it talked about how wetlands kind of act as a natural barrier to hurricanes. When we destroy these or build on them, we are putting ourselves in danger. I think we can learn a lot from different species and it would be unfair if we only focused on industrializing and take nature for granted.

The End of the Wild

It is hard to pinpoint the absolute most thrilling or magical engagement I've had with the non-human world. If I could just lump them all together, it would certainly be the year that I spent in the Philippines, but to pick just one of my experiences while there would be to leave out some of the other amazing things I got to see while there. If I absolutely had to, I could narrow it down to three. First would be my experience ziplining through the Macahambus Gorge. After walking across a narrow bridge through the tops of the trees, I was able to take a flying ride back to where I started. It was amazing to look down over all of the trees and beautiful plants on the forest floor. Second would be the rafting trip down the Cagayan de Oro river; this river, which ran through my host city, it the only river in the Philippines to have natural rapids. During some of the calmer parts of the journey, we were able to see native birds and animals on the riverbanks and see many beautiful rock formations and plants. The third and final item I would point out is when I went to the island of Boracay, a famed tourist island in the central Philippines. The eastern coast of the island with a 3 km long pristine white beach is very developed, with many resorts. There are options, however, to explore the significantly less developed western side of the island. It was absolutely beautiful to be on a secluded road which suddenly let out to a gorgeous beach with its crystal clear water.

As great as all of these things are, however, I am not sure that saving random species of plants and animals should be our most important concern. Obviously everything in the environment is connected and you can't simply consider on thing and completely forget about the rest. I am simply saying that some of the examples that Meyer used in his book seemed almost pointless to try to save. He wrote about one species of grass that is only in one county in California. Has this grass proven to be of any sort of benefit to the area or to humans? He didn't specifically say so. In my opinion, then, we should not focus our time, energy, and (arguably most importantly) money, on saving this one tiny species of grass. I don't agree with the vast destruction of yet untouched areas. I think that we should try to keep what we have and try to make it better and to use our time and energy preserving what isn't destined to disappear within the next few years. Nature is important and everyone, today and in the future, should get to enjoy it. Without creating some form of regulation, the natural world will certainly fall into even more of a decline than is already present.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

The most magical, reverent, and awe-inspiring moment I've had with nature occurred last year in Utah. I spent spring break at BYU with my best friend, taking advantage of the fresh snowfall with a week of sledding, snowball fights, and more importantly, snowboarding. Perhaps it was the novelty of mountains in general (being from the East Coast, I didn't see a mountain until I was 16), but standing at the top of the slope, surrounded by snowy monoliths, was a truly magical, humbling moment. Sure, the view was breathtaking, but the massive presence of the mountains commanded respect. With feet strapped into the snowboard, I realized just how much I was truly at the mercy of nature; the mountains, impassive and impersonal, could not care less if I made it down the slope in one piece or not. The duality of the moment, the absolute beauty of the clear, cloudless sky, the untouched snow, the jagged peaks covered in powdered firs, and the simultaneous aloofness of the forces of nature to human wants or needs, proved to be powerful.

On that note, nature, both its non-human organisms and inorganic elements, needs to be treated with respect and seen with inherent value in itself. Nature (a term I use to encompass all of Earth and its multitude ecosystems and biomes) is bigger than all of us; this longevity and relative permanence should remind humans that while we try to control the world around us, we are merely genetic happenstance, and are only as important as we perceive ourselves. Humans are products of evolution, no different from any other organism. Even inorganic aspects of nature- mountains, bodies of water, etc.- are the results of chemical shifts and reactions; if we can recognize that all of Nature, and our existence on Earth, is simply the combined effect of really fortunate chance events, then the value of Nature becomes apparent. Placed on a level playing field by probability, if we consider humans to have value, and understand our equality with all of life on Earth, connected by the same impartial laws of chemistry, biology, and physics, then all of Nature has value as well; we cannot hold ourselves in higher regard just because evolution granted us the ability to even decide what value is.

That was an extremely long-winded biocentric rant, but I think Carl Sagan sums it up perfectly in Cosmos:

"This oak tree and me, we're made of the same stuff."